08 May, 2016

A Critique of John Murray’s Theory of Common Grace “Preparing” the Hearts of those who Hear the Gospel (the “Vestibule of faith”)

Prof.
Herman C. Hanko

[Source: Another Look at Common Grace (2019
edition), pp. 68-70]

Many
supporters of common grace have spoken of a relationship between common grace
and special grace. An example of this may be found in Murray who writes:

We may say that in the operations of common
grace we have what we may call the vestibule of faith. We have as it were the
point of contact, the Anknüpfungspunkt,
at which and upon which the Holy Spirit enters with the special and saving
operations of his grace. Faith does not take its genesis in a vacuum. It has
its antecedents and presuppositions both logically and chronologically in the
operations of common grace.

Both in the individual sphere and in the
sphere of organic and historic movement, the onward course of Christianity can
never be dissociated from the preparations by which it is preceded and from
conditions by which it is surrounded, preparations and conditions that belong
not only to the general field of divine providence but also to the particular
sphere of beneficent and gracious administration on God’s part, yet gracious
administration that is obviously not in itself saving, and therefore
administration that belongs to the sphere of common grace. (Murray, Collected Writings, Vol. II, pp. 115,
116.)

It
is admittedly somewhat difficult to understand precisely how Murray views the
relationship between common grace and special grace in these remarks. But it
would seem that his argument is that, because God’s common grace is indeed grace (and mercy, love, kindness, etc.),
it is not only an outward attitude towards mankind in general, but also an
inward operation of the Spirit which not only creates an objective “climate” in
which the gospel can be more effectively preached, but also makes the sinner
more receptive to the gospel.

Grace
is, after all, an attitude of favor
on God’s part towards men. This attitude does not mean a thing unless the
object of that attitude himself knows
it and experiences it. I may have an
attitude of love for a widow in Bangladesh who has just suffered the loss of
her family in a terrible flood; but that attitude means nothing unless she knows of it through my own care for her
and provision for her earthly and spiritual needs in a time of disaster.

Thus,
the wicked are made more receptive to the “overtures” of the gospel because
they themselves know that God loves
them and is mercifully inclined to them so that they are made more receptive to
the offer of the gospel.

That
this is probably the meaning is evident from the fact, in the first place, that
common grace is always connected with the free offer of the gospel; and, in the
second place, from the fact that the “Three Points” of common grace connected
God’s general attitude of favor to all with both the free offer and the inward
operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men restraining sin.

It
is not our purpose to go into this aspect of the question in detail. First of
all, it is not our intent in this study to discuss the free offer; and,
secondly, the subject will come up again when we come to discuss the whole idea
of the “restraint of sin.”

Nevertheless,
it is important to note already here that such a line of argumentation opens
the door to blatant Arminianism. The simple fact of the matter is that the
gospel does come to men in a
spiritual “vacuum.” It comes to sinners, totally
depraved and unable to do any good. It comes as the power of God unto salvation. It comes to transform sinners into saints and blasphemers into those who humbly
confess their sins and seek salvation in the cross.

To
speak of a general operation of grace in the hearts of all to “prepare men for
the gospel so that they may be more receptive” is to open the door to the worst
form of Arminianism. All who receive such common grace are in a state of
receptivity because of a divine work of
grace. Whether or not they actually accept
the gospel depends upon their choice. The choice is possible because God has done all He can to make them
receptive. He has, through the gospel, expressed Himself as willing and
ready for men to believe. He has, by His Spirit, made them capable of receiving the gospel. Now the choice is in man’s hand,
and his eternal destiny is determined, not by God’s sovereign determination,
but by man’s choice. This is
Arminianism. It is to be rejected by anyone who loves the truth of Scripture.